[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200714083715.GE4516@willie-the-truck>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 09:37:15 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: guoren@...nel.org
Cc: catalin.marinas@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Make TSK_STACK_CANARY more accurate defined
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 04:03:33AM +0000, guoren@...nel.org wrote:
> From: Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>
>
> TSK_STACK_CANARY only used in arm64/Makefile with
> CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_PER_TASK wrap. So use the same policy in
> asm-offset.c.
>
> Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Co-developed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> index 0577e21..37d5d3d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ int main(void)
> DEFINE(TSK_TI_SCS_SP, offsetof(struct task_struct, thread_info.scs_sp));
> #endif
> DEFINE(TSK_STACK, offsetof(struct task_struct, stack));
> -#ifdef CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR
> +#ifdef CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_PER_TASK
> DEFINE(TSK_STACK_CANARY, offsetof(struct task_struct, stack_canary));
> #endif
I don't think this really makese much sense. The 'stack_canary' field in
'struct task_struct' is defined as:
#ifdef CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR
/* Canary value for the -fstack-protector GCC feature: */
unsigned long stack_canary;
#endif
so I think it makes sense to follow that in asm-offsets.c
Does the current code actually cause a problem?
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists